Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Parraga v. Henderson, 99-1129 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-1129 Visitors: 17
Filed: Mar. 02, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1129 SUSAN M. PARRAGA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, U. S. Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 98-2051-CCB) Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: March 2, 2000 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and Samuel G. WILSON, Chief United Sta
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1129 SUSAN M. PARRAGA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, U. S. Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 98-2051-CCB) Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: March 2, 2000 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and Samuel G. WILSON, Chief United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James J. Nolan, Jr., John B. Bratt, PIERSON, PIERSON & NOLAN, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Perry F. Sekus, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Susan M. Parraga appeals the district court’s order granting Appellee summary judgment in her employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Parraga v. Henderson, No. CA-98-2051-CCB (D. Md. Jan. 5, 1999). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer